DHS Proposes Ending the 60-Day Grace Period After a Job Ends: Comments by November 10

This is a proposal, not a final rule, and the 60 days still apply today. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed eliminating the grace period of up to 60 days in the regulation at 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2) for workers in eight work-visa classifications and their dependents. The document was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2026, and public comments remain open until November 10, 2026, only through the regulations.gov portal. Until a final rule is published, with an effective date, nothing changes.

What the 60-day grace period is today

The grace period is a discretionary period of up to 60 consecutive days, or until the end of the authorized validity period, whichever is shorter. During that period, a worker whose employment has ended is not considered to have failed to maintain status solely for not engaging in the activity that justified admission. The period was created by the AC21 final rule of November 18, 2016 (81 FR 82398), in effect since January 17, 2017.

The grace period does not authorize work, unless there is another authorization. During the 60 days, the worker may seek a new employer to file a petition, request an extension or change of status, or file another applicable request. The text records that the grace period is available once per authorized validity period, and that DHS may shorten or eliminate it, generally when the worker files a later request. The period begins on the day after employment ends, according to the reading of the document, and it may be shorter than 60 days when the authorized validity ends first.

Who the grace period covers

The grace period covers eight work-visa classifications, in addition to the principal worker’s dependents: E-1, treaty traders; E-2, treaty investors; E-3, specialty occupation professionals from Australia; H-1B and H-1B1, specialty occupations; L-1, intracompany transferees; O-1, extraordinary ability or extraordinary achievement; and TN, professional business activities. Dependents are the spouse and unmarried children under 21 who accompany the principal worker or join the principal worker later.

The grace period follows the principal worker: while DHS considers that the principal worker has maintained status, the dependents may also be considered to have maintained status. The end of a dependent’s authorized employment does not affect the dependent’s status or the principal worker’s status, as the document states. The rules for extension and change of status for those already in the U.S. (https://meridianglobalmobility.com/en/already-in-us-status-options/) are another subject on this site.

What the proposal would change, point by point

The proposal has a short amendatory text, with three items. The first is the removal of 8 CFR 214.1(l)(2), which creates the grace period. The second is the redesignation of current paragraph (l)(3) as the new (l)(2): it allows a person in an authorized period to request an extension of stay or change of status, if otherwise eligible. The third is the revision of 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i), on employment authorization based on compelling circumstances: the initial request would have to be filed while the worker is still in E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, O-1 or L-1 status, including the periods in 8 CFR 214.1(l)(1), without the reference to the 60-day grace period.

With the removal, the worker would be considered to have failed to maintain status on the day after employment or activity ends, according to the text of the proposal, and would have to depart the United States immediately, unless otherwise authorized to remain. Dependents would follow the same day. Before 2017, there was no grace period, and a worker was generally considered to have failed to maintain status on the day after employment ended.

What stays the same until a final rule

Nothing changes with the publication of the proposal. The grace period remains in effect, and DHS has not set an effective date for a final rule, because a final rule does not yet exist.

The proposal also does not remove the separate period of up to 10 days in 8 CFR 214.1(l)(1), described as applying after the validity period ends — it does not cover a worker whose employment ends in the middle of the approved validity period. The amendatory text lists only the changes described in the previous section.

The consequence of failing to maintain status, recorded in the document, already exists in current law: a person may be considered deportable, under section 237(a)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The organization of the documents for each process remains described in the guide to essential documents to start the assessment (https://meridianglobalmobility.com/en/essential-documents-assessment/).

Why DHS proposes the change

DHS states that status in these classifications is tied by statute to the employment or activity that justified admission. In the department’s view, the grace period breaks that link, because it maintains the status of a person who no longer performs the activity that formed the basis of admission.

The other reason recorded is the administrative burden: in each later request, officers must check whether the grace period applies, whether it should be shortened or eliminated, and what its start and end dates are. From fiscal year 2018 through May 20, 2026, USCIS assessed about 1.9 million petitions and applications in which the grace period could have applied.

DHS also presents estimates of who used the grace period, based on revoked-petition data as a proxy. From fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 2025, there were 328,758 beneficiaries who lost their job or changed employers, 99% of them H-1B. Within the grace period, 18,975 filed a change-of-employer petition on Form I-129 (5.77%), 1,924 filed an adjustment of status application on Form I-485 (0.59%), and 5,596 filed an extension or change of status application on Form I-539 (1.70%). The department acknowledges the limits of these data: not all employers notify USCIS when employment ends.

The three alternatives DHS rejected

The document records three alternatives that were considered and rejected. The first was to eliminate the grace period only for some classifications: DHS responds that this would keep the inconsistency with the statute for the rest and would not reduce the administrative burden. The second was to shorten the grace period: a shorter period would not reduce the requests to review or the verification of dates, and it would not meet the goal of requiring departure after employment ends. The third was to impose precise and stringent evidentiary requirements for USCIS even to consider the grace period: officers would still have to examine the documentation and verify the employment end date, and that route would also not align the regulation with the statute.

How to submit comments by November 10

Comments run until November 10, 2026, and the electronic system accepts submissions until midnight, Eastern time, at the end of that day. The only channel is the regulations.gov portal, under DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0364. Emails or letters to DHS or USCIS officials are not considered comments and may not receive a response, as the document states. Comments by mail or hand delivery are also not accepted.

Comments go in English, or with an English translation, and must include the agency name, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the docket number. Submissions are published on the portal, without change, including any personal information provided. The change of address on Form AR-11 (https://meridianglobalmobility.com/en/change-of-address-uscis-form-ar-11/) has its own 10-day deadline and its own rules.

Frequently asked questions

Are the 60 days already over?

No. The grace period remains in effect, according to the text of the proposal, because the document of September 11, 2026 is a proposed rule, not a final rule. Nothing changes until a final rule is published, with an effective date.

Who would lose the grace period if the proposal becomes a final rule?

The eight classifications listed — E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN — and their dependents. All would be considered to have failed to maintain status on the day after the principal worker’s employment ends.

Does the 10-day period also end?

No, under the proposal. The period of up to 10 days in 8 CFR 214.1(l)(1) is not removed, and the document describes it as applying after the validity period ends, not in the middle of it.

What happens to the compelling circumstances employment authorization request?

The proposal revises 8 CFR 204.5(p)(1)(i) to remove the reference to the grace period. The initial request would have to be filed while the worker is still in E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, O-1 or L-1 status, including the periods in 8 CFR 214.1(l)(1), according to the amendatory text.

Until when can the proposal be commented on?

Until November 10, 2026, only through regulations.gov, under docket USCIS-2026-0364. The system accepts submissions until midnight, Eastern time, at the end of that day. Comments by email, letter, mail or hand delivery are not considered.

The pathways provided for in the legislation for living in the United States are gathered on the page devoted to comparing the immigration pathways (https://meridianglobalmobility.com/en/compare-immigration-pathways/). The official step-by-step for the Social Security Number (SSN) (https://meridianglobalmobility.com/en/social-security-number-how-to-apply-ssn/) and the article on the end of deference in the I-129 (https://meridianglobalmobility.com/en/end-deference-i129-dhs-proposal-extensions/), with comments open until November 13, 2026, are other content on this site.

Disclaimer and compliance notice: Meridian Global Mobility (MGM) provides operational coordination, document organization, and logistical support for Brazil–U.S. mobility projects. MGM is not a law firm and does not provide legal services, legal advice, or representation before government agencies. Any legal services are provided independently by licensed, independent attorneys in the United States. The content of this article is informational and does not constitute consulting or an eligibility determination.